U.S. Supreme Court to hear challenge to Voting Rights Act

by jmaloni

Press release

Tue, Feb 26th 2013 04:40 pm

Schneiderman
leads multi-state coalition defending Voting Rights Act against
constitutional challenge; New
York, California, Mississippi and North Carolina argue law provides
important protections for minority voters and that compliance poses
no undue burden or cost on states

The
U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case
challenging the constitutionality of a core provision of the Voting
Rights Act. In a friend-of-the-court brief, Attorney General Eric T.
Schneiderman led a four-state coalition to argue that the Court
should reject the constitutional challenge to the law given the
important role that the Voting Rights Act plays in blocking and
deterring voting discrimination. The brief was filed jointly with
California, Mississippi and North Carolina in the case of Shelby
County, Alabama v. Holder.

The
constitutional challenge brought by Shelby County takes aim at the
Section 5 preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act. The
preclearance provision requires certain jurisdictions, including
several covered counties in New York, to submit new voting changes
for federal review to ensure that they were not adopted with a
discriminatory purpose, and will not negatively impact minority voter
participation.

"The
Voting Rights Act stands as one of Congress's greatest legislative
achievements, and its protections remain vital to ensuring that all
voters have equal access to the democratic process," Schneiderman
said. "The preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act helps
eliminate discriminatory voting laws and practices before they can
take root. Most importantly, the benefits afforded by the law far
outweigh the minimal burden on covered jurisdictions. While we have
seen progress, the protections afforded by the Voting Rights Act
clearly remain necessary in the states where the law applies,
including New York."

Shelby
County argues that Section 5 is no longer required and claims that
Congress exceeded its powers when it reauthorized the law in 2006.
Shelby County also argues that the law is intrusive on states and
argues that its protections are no longer necessary in the 16 states
where the law applies. Schneiderman, along with Mississippi, North
Carolina and California, provide a stark contrast to Shelby County's
contentions, asserting that Section 5 is an appropriate exercise of
congressional power and a carefully tailored tool that applies in
those parts of the country where the law's protections remain most
necessary. In addition, the brief presents the important practical
perspective and experience of the covered jurisdictions subject to
Section 5, and notes that compliance with the law has historically
and continues to pose little burden or cost on the states.

According
to the brief, "The Section 5 preclearance process has helped bring
about tremendous progress in the covered jurisdictions and continues
to be a vital mechanism to assist amici states in working to achieve
the equality in opportunities for political participation that is a
foundational principle of our democracy."

In
2006, Congress conducted extensive hearings to determine whether the
law's requirements remained necessary, compiled a record of ongoing
discrimination throughout the covered jurisdictions, and voted
overwhelmingly by a margin of 98-0 in the Senate to renew the law.
The preclearance provision applies to Kings, Bronx and New York
counties and has provided important protections for minority voters
in New York state. The law also applies to the State of Mississippi,
and parts of both North Carolina and California, among other states.

The
case was handled by Special Counsel to the Solicitor General Steven
Wu, Deputy Solicitor General Cecelia Chang and Solicitor General
Barbara D. Underwood.